So, the ending . . . what does everyone think? was it funny? did it all wrap up together well?
What I wanted to point out in particular is that I saw a contrast of the love of Miss Neville and Hastings to the relationship of Kate Hardcastle and her visitor Mr. Marlow. Miss Neville and Hastings had a true bond from the start, regardless of class and family restrictions. They found a way to be together. On the other hand, Kate was not too keen on the idea of a match with the son of her father's friend. Even when she initially meets Marlow, there is not much of a connection. Yet, we can see that Marlow is tricky because he plays two opposite personalities, and eventually he ends up actually liking a woman for herself (a.k.a. Miss Hardcastle as a barmaid). Similarly, Miss Hardcastle is tricky for deceiving both Mr. Marlow and her father. Ultimately, I think they go well together; they just had to uncover the truth through the odd circumstances first.
At the same time, however, (if this is not too jumbled) Miss Hardcastle would probably pair well with Tony, too. Tony's character is rowdy, deceiving, and certainly not reserved. What does everyone think about how the relationships turned out in the end?- sfa-c Feb 6, 2008
Oh, and I also wanted to commet on the Epilogue(s) (61-3):
"Well, having stooped to conquer with success,
And gained a husband without aid from dress . . ."
Of course, "stooped to conquer" fits appropriately here, although I am not sure why a summary of the acts is needed. Nevertheless, the important line in this quote is the one about Miss Hardcastle finding someone without "aid from dress." She did not need fashion, as she adored at the start of the play, and she did not need to act any certain way, except that of herself. Marlow both respected and liked her in the end, as a barmaid and then as Miss Hardcastle.
Then, the first Epilogue ends with calling Miss Hardcastle a barrister, which I find entertaining because she proves to her own father and to Sir Charles that Marlow is perfect for her.
But what does the line "As I have conquered him to conquer you" exactly mean? Who is the "I"? It says that Goldsmith speaks the line, as if "conquer you" means set up a winding and tricky plot to entertain us, yet the line could also easily apply to Miss Hardcastle. ??? - sfa-c Feb 6, 2008
You say a few times that Marlow ends up liking her as she is, as a barmaid. But that's not her. Miss Neville summarizes Marlow in the very beginning. She says that when he's around people of higher social class, he is modest, but vain when around women of lower social standing. Miss Hardcastle wishes to teach him confidence (22), and so she becomes a barmaid. Once he looks at her (what he does when he is vain, apparently), he says: "Yes, child, I think I did call. I wanted--I wanted--I vow, child, you are vastly handsome!...Yes, yes, my dear, I did call. Have you got any of your--a--what d'ye call it in the house?" (34) He becomes less confident in his speech, more aggressive in his actions. He has swung completely opposite of what he was when he first met her as Miss Hardcastle. Once reality is thrust upon him, he becomes a happy combination of modesty and vanity. I don't believe "without aid from dress" refers to the idea that everything without regard to class will work itself out and be perfect. I think it refers to her not using her class as a crutch to make things perfect. Indeed, without her class, Marlow would never have realized (or at least would never have been ashamed of) his double nature. His existence as a vain, agressive jerk alone or his existence as a modest, shy guy would not have ever led to a happy ending. The two people had to meet and look eachother face to face.
I hope this is not all ending up to be some big plot summary, but I have tried to phrase it in a way that points to something: Goldsmith's intentions, perhaps. He says in the prologue that comedies that are centered on morals don't create laughs, and maybe the epilogue points to the idea that comedies that are centered on humor don't give satisfaction ("I hopes as how to give you satisfaction" says the barmaid, perhaps the representative of pure humor). The two have to meet eachother and look face to face. This is all theoretical, but what do you think? - KLe-c Feb 7, 2008
I thought it was a perfect ending considering Goldsmith's intentions because he did not want have a traditional play filled with morals and philosophical questions. He wanted a play that would not only satirize those styles but also entertain the people reading or watching the play. Throughout the whole play there is trickery and deceit and complex social web that would make anyone's head hurt. Of course there is also Mr. Marlow's two-facedness with how he acts around those with him: around the poor he is arrogant and somewhat conceited because he feels better than they are, yet those who are of the same social status or higher he is modest. However, this conveniently fits into the grand scheme of things when Miss. Hardcastle becomes a barmaid to, as KLe stated, teach him confidence, yet rather than Mr. Marlow simply scoffing at the notion of being with a lowly barmaid, he suddenly does something out of character and falls in the love with her. So instead of play ending badly to show that it is not good to be deceiving in relationship matter to teach a long-winded moral that no one wants to read when they just want to be entertained, the play ends with everything working out in the end, giving everyone the happy ending that the majority wants to see.- MSu-c
As far as humor and entertainment are concerned, I really enjoyed the ending. Although the "right" ending to this story was a long cry from humorous, it was still a conclusion that I enjoyed. Goldsmith was even able to maintain the humor in his happy ending through Tony Lumpkin. First Tony rids himself of the "spinster" Constance Neville, riddling her with insults and infuriating his noble wench of a mother. Then he dashes off with the wonderfully rotund Bet Bouncer (to a resounding chorus of Queens "Fat Bottomed Girls," in my mind). Even the Marlow/Kate relationship is mildly amusing: she taunting him as he delivers 18th century swears at his foolishness.
The epilogue, on the other hand, was not to my liking at all. I am not entirely sure that I understood the point of the epilogue, so my unhappiness may be unfounded. I disagree with the aforementioned statement that this epilogue gives us a summary of the acts. Unless my interpretation is off-base, this summary of acts is a summary of life. I say this because the "acts" do not really explain the story. In the first act, Kate Hardcastle only discusses the night's upcoming events. She does not "blush when hired.." as the epilogue indicates. Instead, I see this as a Shakespearean allusion: we all begin life as shy, innocent people eager to please. Furthermore, the third act describes a woman who wiles the general audience so completely that "even Common Councilmen forget to eat." Whle she turns Marlowe's head, she hardly wows an entire audience. Contrarily, our "third act" could be the act of our prime, when we succed in our endeavors and gain the respect of our peers. Finally, the epilogue is delivered by Goldsmith. This could almost be a soliloquy of himself and his own achievement, layed down in five acts. The reason why my interpretation upset me was the preachy nature of this device. Not only is it self-congratulatory, it delivers a message on life. Goldsmith promised to avoid morals in the name of comedy, and I am afraid that he tripped at the finish line. - TRu-c Feb 14, 2008
I enjoyed the ending, but I have to admit that it was not at all what I expected of Goldsmith. Brother Tom told us how Goldsmith was set on contradicting the typical plays of the era, but I really don't feel that the ending did that. They all lived happily ever after, in a nutshell. I was expecting Goldsmith to completely contradict what the social norm of endings was. But after some consideration, I think that perhaps Goldsmith was able to contradict them while still upsetting the social expectations of the time. Kate ended up with Marlow, which was what her father wanted from the beginning. However, Marlow is certainly not the man that Mr. Hardcastle thought he was at the beginning. He thought he was humble and modest, but Kate was able to prove that he could be proud and haughty. Mr. Hardcastle might not have approved of this type of a mate for Kate, but this was the man that Kate wanted. The fact that she ends up with him contradicts social standards of the time. - Kho-c Feb 15, 2008
Kho, you commented on how the fact that Kate ended up with Marlow completely contradicted the social norm of the time, because of her father's disapproval. That may be true, however, is it to be unexpected in a play? If they didn't live happily ever after, who would want to watch or read the play? Maybe realistically, if these were real people, not just characters in a play, Kate would have had to listen to her father and find a way to love a man that her father approved of and thought was a suitable partner for his daughter, like an arranged marriage. Although those are not common in our society today, they are still very alive in other parts of the world, just as they were when this play was written I imagine. People needed security, not love, right? Well, what I'm trying to say is that even before when arranged marriages were common, so were happy-ending love stories. Everybody wants to believe in happy endings, not a forced relationship, even if that is the social reality.- AGe-c Feb 15, 2008
I loved the ending! i am, as i have said before and probably will say again, a hopeless romantic. I wanted Kate to end up with Marlow and Neville to end up with Hastings. I liked the ending because even through all of the confusion, they ended up with who they were supposed to end up with. It was a happily-ever-after story, kind of. I guess it was twisted a little...
I mean the character of Tony caused enough problems throughout, and Mrs. Hardcastle was a little crazy, and Marlow's class problems. But, it all ended up ok. Tony ended up actually denying his "claim" on Neville. - MFi-c Feb 15, 2008
I thought that it was odd that Kate was okay with Marlow liking the barmaid over her real self. But I guess that brings up the question of who was the real Kate, the barmaid? or the uptight Miss Hardcastle? And did Marlow like Kate for who she was, or for the part she played to please him? I liked the ending, but I thought it ended abruptly in not clarifying this question. And by not clarifying this question, it makes me question if Marlow and Kate were actually in love after one night, or if they were in love with false perceptions of the each other. I think we have to assume that they did fall in love with each other's true self because this is a "happily ever after" kind of play, but I do have my doubts. - LDo-c Feb 15, 2008
I, too, had the question of who the "real" Kate really was. Did her father really know her best and could he see that she was just being swept away by the influences of teh changing culture and fashions of the time? I know that many of us are often sucked into the same type of situation - we give into what is popular instead of staying to true to who we really are. I dont know if we have to assume anything about the end of the play and if Kate and Marlow really fell in love with each other after one night. There has been much discussion about lessons and morals in the play and I think that many would draw morals and lessons from the ending if we knew for shure what happened between Kate and Marlow. I am not sure that Goldsmith really wanted us to focus on the ending so much as he wanted us to focus on the events that lead up to the ending. - MBe-c Feb 15, 2008
Well, obviously there is a lot of general informoration that a author does not include about his or her works, and these things are just sort of things that we need to make our own personal assumptions about. So whether her father knew her best or could see that Kathe was just being swept away by the influences of the changing culture. It is our individual decision to interpret their actions as we choose, and any writer knows that. And, maybe we did focus on the ending too much, but maybe Goldsmith should have written it differently if he wanted us to read it differently. Morals and lessons flow from his creation though we may intially miss them when we first read this play. - kva-c Feb 16, 2008
What I wanted to point out in particular is that I saw a contrast of the love of Miss Neville and Hastings to the relationship of Kate Hardcastle and her visitor Mr. Marlow. Miss Neville and Hastings had a true bond from the start, regardless of class and family restrictions. They found a way to be together. On the other hand, Kate was not too keen on the idea of a match with the son of her father's friend. Even when she initially meets Marlow, there is not much of a connection. Yet, we can see that Marlow is tricky because he plays two opposite personalities, and eventually he ends up actually liking a woman for herself (a.k.a. Miss Hardcastle as a barmaid). Similarly, Miss Hardcastle is tricky for deceiving both Mr. Marlow and her father. Ultimately, I think they go well together; they just had to uncover the truth through the odd circumstances first.
At the same time, however, (if this is not too jumbled) Miss Hardcastle would probably pair well with Tony, too. Tony's character is rowdy, deceiving, and certainly not reserved. What does everyone think about how the relationships turned out in the end?-
Oh, and I also wanted to commet on the Epilogue(s) (61-3):
"Well, having stooped to conquer with success,
And gained a husband without aid from dress . . ."
Of course, "stooped to conquer" fits appropriately here, although I am not sure why a summary of the acts is needed. Nevertheless, the important line in this quote is the one about Miss Hardcastle finding someone without "aid from dress." She did not need fashion, as she adored at the start of the play, and she did not need to act any certain way, except that of herself. Marlow both respected and liked her in the end, as a barmaid and then as Miss Hardcastle.
Then, the first Epilogue ends with calling Miss Hardcastle a barrister, which I find entertaining because she proves to her own father and to Sir Charles that Marlow is perfect for her.
But what does the line "As I have conquered him to conquer you" exactly mean? Who is the "I"? It says that Goldsmith speaks the line, as if "conquer you" means set up a winding and tricky plot to entertain us, yet the line could also easily apply to Miss Hardcastle. ??? -
You say a few times that Marlow ends up liking her as she is, as a barmaid. But that's not her. Miss Neville summarizes Marlow in the very beginning. She says that when he's around people of higher social class, he is modest, but vain when around women of lower social standing. Miss Hardcastle wishes to teach him confidence (22), and so she becomes a barmaid. Once he looks at her (what he does when he is vain, apparently), he says: "Yes, child, I think I did call. I wanted--I wanted--I vow, child, you are vastly handsome!...Yes, yes, my dear, I did call. Have you got any of your--a--what d'ye call it in the house?" (34) He becomes less confident in his speech, more aggressive in his actions. He has swung completely opposite of what he was when he first met her as Miss Hardcastle. Once reality is thrust upon him, he becomes a happy combination of modesty and vanity. I don't believe "without aid from dress" refers to the idea that everything without regard to class will work itself out and be perfect. I think it refers to her not using her class as a crutch to make things perfect. Indeed, without her class, Marlow would never have realized (or at least would never have been ashamed of) his double nature. His existence as a vain, agressive jerk alone or his existence as a modest, shy guy would not have ever led to a happy ending. The two people had to meet and look eachother face to face.
I hope this is not all ending up to be some big plot summary, but I have tried to phrase it in a way that points to something: Goldsmith's intentions, perhaps. He says in the prologue that comedies that are centered on morals don't create laughs, and maybe the epilogue points to the idea that comedies that are centered on humor don't give satisfaction ("I hopes as how to give you satisfaction" says the barmaid, perhaps the representative of pure humor). The two have to meet eachother and look face to face. This is all theoretical, but what do you think? -
I thought it was a perfect ending considering Goldsmith's intentions because he did not want have a traditional play filled with morals and philosophical questions. He wanted a play that would not only satirize those styles but also entertain the people reading or watching the play. Throughout the whole play there is trickery and deceit and complex social web that would make anyone's head hurt. Of course there is also Mr. Marlow's two-facedness with how he acts around those with him: around the poor he is arrogant and somewhat conceited because he feels better than they are, yet those who are of the same social status or higher he is modest. However, this conveniently fits into the grand scheme of things when Miss. Hardcastle becomes a barmaid to, as KLe stated, teach him confidence, yet rather than Mr. Marlow simply scoffing at the notion of being with a lowly barmaid, he suddenly does something out of character and falls in the love with her. So instead of play ending badly to show that it is not good to be deceiving in relationship matter to teach a long-winded moral that no one wants to read when they just want to be entertained, the play ends with everything working out in the end, giving everyone the happy ending that the majority wants to see.-
As far as humor and entertainment are concerned, I really enjoyed the ending. Although the "right" ending to this story was a long cry from humorous, it was still a conclusion that I enjoyed. Goldsmith was even able to maintain the humor in his happy ending through Tony Lumpkin. First Tony rids himself of the "spinster" Constance Neville, riddling her with insults and infuriating his noble wench of a mother. Then he dashes off with the wonderfully rotund Bet Bouncer (to a resounding chorus of Queens "Fat Bottomed Girls," in my mind). Even the Marlow/Kate relationship is mildly amusing: she taunting him as he delivers 18th century swears at his foolishness.
The epilogue, on the other hand, was not to my liking at all. I am not entirely sure that I understood the point of the epilogue, so my unhappiness may be unfounded. I disagree with the aforementioned statement that this epilogue gives us a summary of the acts. Unless my interpretation is off-base, this summary of acts is a summary of life. I say this because the "acts" do not really explain the story. In the first act, Kate Hardcastle only discusses the night's upcoming events. She does not "blush when hired.." as the epilogue indicates. Instead, I see this as a Shakespearean allusion: we all begin life as shy, innocent people eager to please. Furthermore, the third act describes a woman who wiles the general audience so completely that "even Common Councilmen forget to eat." Whle she turns Marlowe's head, she hardly wows an entire audience. Contrarily, our "third act" could be the act of our prime, when we succed in our endeavors and gain the respect of our peers. Finally, the epilogue is delivered by Goldsmith. This could almost be a soliloquy of himself and his own achievement, layed down in five acts. The reason why my interpretation upset me was the preachy nature of this device. Not only is it self-congratulatory, it delivers a message on life. Goldsmith promised to avoid morals in the name of comedy, and I am afraid that he tripped at the finish line. -
I enjoyed the ending, but I have to admit that it was not at all what I expected of Goldsmith. Brother Tom told us how Goldsmith was set on contradicting the typical plays of the era, but I really don't feel that the ending did that. They all lived happily ever after, in a nutshell. I was expecting Goldsmith to completely contradict what the social norm of endings was. But after some consideration, I think that perhaps Goldsmith was able to contradict them while still upsetting the social expectations of the time. Kate ended up with Marlow, which was what her father wanted from the beginning. However, Marlow is certainly not the man that Mr. Hardcastle thought he was at the beginning. He thought he was humble and modest, but Kate was able to prove that he could be proud and haughty. Mr. Hardcastle might not have approved of this type of a mate for Kate, but this was the man that Kate wanted. The fact that she ends up with him contradicts social standards of the time. -
Kho, you commented on how the fact that Kate ended up with Marlow completely contradicted the social norm of the time, because of her father's disapproval. That may be true, however, is it to be unexpected in a play? If they didn't live happily ever after, who would want to watch or read the play? Maybe realistically, if these were real people, not just characters in a play, Kate would have had to listen to her father and find a way to love a man that her father approved of and thought was a suitable partner for his daughter, like an arranged marriage. Although those are not common in our society today, they are still very alive in other parts of the world, just as they were when this play was written I imagine. People needed security, not love, right? Well, what I'm trying to say is that even before when arranged marriages were common, so were happy-ending love stories. Everybody wants to believe in happy endings, not a forced relationship, even if that is the social reality.-
I loved the ending! i am, as i have said before and probably will say again, a hopeless romantic. I wanted Kate to end up with Marlow and Neville to end up with Hastings. I liked the ending because even through all of the confusion, they ended up with who they were supposed to end up with. It was a happily-ever-after story, kind of. I guess it was twisted a little...
I mean the character of Tony caused enough problems throughout, and Mrs. Hardcastle was a little crazy, and Marlow's class problems. But, it all ended up ok. Tony ended up actually denying his "claim" on Neville.
-
I thought that it was odd that Kate was okay with Marlow liking the barmaid over her real self. But I guess that brings up the question of who was the real Kate, the barmaid? or the uptight Miss Hardcastle? And did Marlow like Kate for who she was, or for the part she played to please him? I liked the ending, but I thought it ended abruptly in not clarifying this question. And by not clarifying this question, it makes me question if Marlow and Kate were actually in love after one night, or if they were in love with false perceptions of the each other. I think we have to assume that they did fall in love with each other's true self because this is a "happily ever after" kind of play, but I do have my doubts.
-
I, too, had the question of who the "real" Kate really was. Did her father really know her best and could he see that she was just being swept away by the influences of teh changing culture and fashions of the time? I know that many of us are often sucked into the same type of situation - we give into what is popular instead of staying to true to who we really are. I dont know if we have to assume anything about the end of the play and if Kate and Marlow really fell in love with each other after one night. There has been much discussion about lessons and morals in the play and I think that many would draw morals and lessons from the ending if we knew for shure what happened between Kate and Marlow. I am not sure that Goldsmith really wanted us to focus on the ending so much as he wanted us to focus on the events that lead up to the ending.
-
Well, obviously there is a lot of general informoration that a author does not include about his or her works, and these things are just sort of things that we need to make our own personal assumptions about. So whether her father knew her best or could see that Kathe was just being swept away by the influences of the changing culture. It is our individual decision to interpret their actions as we choose, and any writer knows that. And, maybe we did focus on the ending too much, but maybe Goldsmith should have written it differently if he wanted us to read it differently. Morals and lessons flow from his creation though we may intially miss them when we first read this play.
-